Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to advise of the deadline to accept a favorable plea offer; Other acts evidence of prior sexual assault; MCL 768.27a; People v Watkins; MRE 403; MRE 611(c); Cruel & unusual punishment; MCL 750.520b(2)(c); Increased penalty on the basis of facts not found by a jury; Life without parole (LWOP)

The court concluded that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of CSC I and II. The record established that he “was aware of the consequences of his choice to reject the plea, as explained by defense counsel (and the prosecutor), so as to enable him to make an informed choice, despite his claimed confusion regarding the date that the plea offer expired.” Defendant had “not established that defense counsel’s actions related to the plea negotiations were objectively unreasonable or prejudicial.” The court found that his “dissatisfaction with his ultimate mandatory LWOP sentences does not establish that defense counsel was ineffective, and defendant is not entitled to resentencing on this basis.” It found that the probative value of the other acts “evidence was high. However, evidence offered under MCL 768.27a is still subject to MRE 403[.]” The court concluded that given “the absence of corroborating physical evidence, the lengthy delay in the girls’ disclosures, and the unusual manner in which their allegations came to light, the other-acts evidence was not wholly unnecessary, meaning this last factor also favors a finding that the evidence did not violate MRE 403.” It also held that given “the high probative value of the other-acts evidence, its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Also, balancing the considerations, defendant had “not demonstrated MCL 750.520b(2)(c) requires imposition of an unconstitutionally cruel or unusual punishment.” Finally, his LWOP sentences were not “impermissible under the federal Constitution because they were required on the basis of facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Affirmed.